Re: [PATCH] t0091-bugreport.sh: actually verify some content of report
- From
SZEDER Gábor <szeder.dev@gmail.com>
- Date
- Apr 13, 2021, 19:44 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20210413194415.GK2947267@szeder.dev>
- In-Reply-To
- <20210411143354.25134-1-martin.agren@gmail.com>
On Sun, Apr 11, 2021 at 04:33:54PM +0200, Martin Ågren wrote:
Show 43 quoted lines
> In the first test in this script, 'creates a report with content in the
> right places', we generate a report and pipe it into our helper
> `check_all_headers_populated()`. The idea of the helper is to find all
> lines that look like headers ("[Some Header Here]") and to check that
> the next line is non-empty. This is supposed to catch erroneous outputs
> such as the following:
>
> [A Header]
> something
> more here
>
> [Another Header]
>
> [Too Early Header]
> contents
>
> However, we provide the lines of the bug report as filenames to grep,
> meaning we mostly end up spewing errors:
>
> grep: : No such file or directory
> grep: [System Info]: No such file or directory
> grep: git version:: No such file or directory
> grep: git version 2.31.1.164.g984c2561cd: No such file
>
> This doesn't disturb the test, which tugs along and reports success, not
> really having verified the contents of the report at all.
>
> Note that after 788a776069 ("bugreport: collect list of populated
> hooks", 2020-05-07), the bug report, which is created in our hook-less
> test repo, contains an empty section with the enabled hooks. Thus, even
> the intention of our helper is a bit misguided: there is nothing
> inherently wrong with having an empty section in the bug report.
>
> Let's instead grep for some contents that we expect to find in a bug
> report. We won't verify that they appear in the right order, but at
> least we end up verifying the contents more than before this commit.
>
> Reported-by: SZEDER Gábor <szeder.dev@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Martin Ågren <martin.agren@gmail.com>
> ---
> > It does scare me..
>
> Maybe something like this?Thanks!
Show 36 quoted lines
> t/t0091-bugreport.sh | 26 +++++---------------------
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/t/t0091-bugreport.sh b/t/t0091-bugreport.sh
> index 526304ff95..9111c4c26f 100755
> --- a/t/t0091-bugreport.sh
> +++ b/t/t0091-bugreport.sh
> @@ -4,29 +4,13 @@ test_description='git bugreport'
>
> . ./test-lib.sh
>
> -# Headers "[System Info]" will be followed by a non-empty line if we put some
> -# information there; we can make sure all our headers were followed by some
> -# information to check if the command was successful.
> -HEADER_PATTERN="^\[.*\]$"
> -
> -check_all_headers_populated () {
> - while read -r line
> - do
> - if test "$(grep "$HEADER_PATTERN" "$line")"
> - then
> - echo "$line"
> - read -r nextline
> - if test -z "$nextline"; then
> - return 1;
> - fi
> - fi
> - done
> -}
> -
> -test_expect_success 'creates a report with content in the right places' '
> +test_expect_success 'creates a report with content' '
> test_when_finished rm git-bugreport-check-headers.txt &&
> git bugreport -s check-headers &&
> - check_all_headers_populated <git-bugreport-check-headers.txt
> + grep "^Please answer " git-bugreport-check-headers.txt &&This "Please answer" is translated and you look for it with plain 'grep' instead of 'test_i18ngrep', which is fine nowadays... However, Junio queued this patch on top of v2.29.3, which is old enough to still have the GETTEXT_POISON CI job, and fails because of this.
> + grep "^\[System Info\]$" git-bugreport-check-headers.txt && > + grep "^git version:$" git-bugreport-check-headers.txt && > + grep "^\[Enabled Hooks\]$" git-bugreport-check-headers.txt > '
I have to wonder, however, whether this is worth testing at all.
Show 5 quoted lines
> > test_expect_success 'dies if file with same name as report already exists' ' > -- > 2.31.1.163.ga65ce7f831 >